VINCENT -v- CLOSE [2014] WASC 5 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 5 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1111/2011	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	9/04/14
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	First defendant to bear her own costs
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	EDGAR WILLIAM VINCENT NORMAN ROSS VINCENT HEATHER LORAINE CLOSE MARGARET IRIS VINCENT ROSEMARIE MARJORIE STILLITANO DONALD JOHN VINCENT JANICE ELIZABETH FARRALL RICHARD BRUCE VINCENT CHRISTINE CHERYL MUNDIE BARBARA GRACE HENDRIKS JEDALEE MESHELL DEMPSKY JULIUS TREVOR DEMPSKY JENNIFER MARIE MEGNA
Catchwords:	Costs Whether costs should be paid from estate Whether litigation extended through conduct of party
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Re Green; Lloyd v Green (Dec'd) [1969] WAR 67 Re Herbert Brothers (Dec'd) (1990) 101 FLR 279 Vincent v Close [2014] WASC 5

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : VINCENT -v- CLOSE [2014] WASC 5 (S) CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 9 APRIL 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1111 of 2011 BETWEEN : EDGAR WILLIAM VINCENT

First Plaintiff

NORMAN ROSS VINCENT

Second Plaintiff

AND

HEATHER LORAINE CLOSE

First Defendant

MARGARET IRIS VINCENT

Second Defendant

ROSEMARIE MARJORIE STILLITANO

Third Defendant

DONALD JOHN VINCENT

Fourth Defendant

JANICE ELIZABETH FARRALL

Fifth Defendant

RICHARD BRUCE VINCENT

Sixth Defendant

CHRISTINE CHERYL MUNDIE

Seventh Defendant

BARBARA GRACE HENDRIKS

Eighth Defendant

JEDALEE MESHELL DEMPSKY

Ninth Defendant

JULIUS TREVOR DEMPSKY

Tenth Defendant

JENNIFER MARIE MEGNA

Eleventh Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Whether costs should be paid from estate - Whether litigation extended through conduct of party

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

First defendant to bear her own costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : No appearance

Second Plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : No appearance

Third Defendant : No appearance

Fourth Defendant : No appearance

Fifth Defendant : No appearance

Sixth Defendant : No appearance

Seventh Defendant : No appearance

Eighth Defendant : No appearance

Ninth Defendant : No appearance

Tenth Defendant : No appearance

Eleventh Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Lynn Hudson

Second Plaintiff : Lynn Hudson

First Defendant : Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo

Second Defendant : No appearance

Third Defendant : Evangel Legal Services

Fourth Defendant : No appearance

Fifth Defendant : No appearance

Sixth Defendant : Curwood & Co Pty Ltd

Seventh Defendant : Curwood & Co Pty Ltd

Eighth Defendant : Curwood & Co Pty Ltd

Ninth Defendant : Curwood & Co Pty Ltd

Tenth Defendant : Curwood & Co Pty Ltd

Eleventh Defendant : Curwood & Co Pty Ltd

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Re Green; Lloyd v Green (Dec'd) [1969] WAR 67
Re Herbert Brothers (Dec'd) (1990) 101 FLR 279
Vincent v Close [2014] WASC 5

1 McKECHNIE J: Following judgment in Vincent v Close [2014] WASC 5 orders were made providing for the plaintiff's costs and the costs of all the defendants, except for the first defendant's costs, any order for which was adjourned for written submissions.

The principles

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Vincent v Close

Details

AGLC: Vincent v Close [2014] WASC 5 (S)
Case: [2014] WASC 5 (S)
Decision Date: 9 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Vincent v Close, the court was asked to determine whether the first defendant, Close, should bear her own legal costs, which arose from litigation that extended due to her conduct. The parties involved in the case were Vincent and Close, and the dispute centred around the distribution of legal costs following a legal battle that had been prolonged by the actions of the first defendant.

The court was tasked with examining whether the first defendant's conduct had contributed to the extension of the litigation, which would influence the decision on whether she should be held responsible for her own costs. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the first defendant's actions were unreasonable or if they could be considered as part of the ordinary conduct of litigation. This assessment was crucial in determining the fairness and appropriateness of allocating the costs to her.

After carefully considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the first defendant's conduct did indeed contribute to the extension of the litigation. The court found that her actions were unreasonable and not part of the ordinary conduct of litigation, which justified holding her responsible for her own costs. Consequently, the court ordered that the first defendant, Close, was to bear her own legal costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

First defendant to bear her own costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.